Pages

Monday, September 27, 2010

Just deserts

JD WALTERS SAID:

“Preventing harm to others is not accomplished by telling lies about other people. Though I really shouldn't have to spell this out to you (even if I am increasingly unsurprised that I have to), I have ZERO sympathy for the devil. At baptism I renounced Satan and all his works. Any suggestion that I and the devil agree on anything is a vicious calumny.”

My priorities are different than yours. It’s your vicious calumny against God that concerns me.

You impugn God’s character when you say no one deserves eternal punishment. You indict God as an unjust judge by punishing sinners more harshly than they deserve.

That’s a diabolical thing for you to say about God.

“The fundamentals of the faith are HERE. You don't get to accuse me of being a heretic unless I contradict one of those statements.”

The Nicene creed is not the standard of comparison. God did not reveal the Nicene creed. That’s a primitive, uninspired statement of faith. It omits much that Scripture teaches.

On judgment day you can’t wave the Nicene creed in God’s face as a permission-slip to excuse you from believing revealed truths. The omissions and deficiencies of the Nicene creed don’t authorize you to deny and defy the word of God.

“Penal substitution is a theological innovation. The Church never affirmed any particular understanding of the atonement as fundamental.”

“The Church” doesn’t get to decide what we are free to disbelieve. God obligates us to believe whatever he reveals.

You act like you can game the system by citing loopholes in fallible creeds. That’s not a get-out-of-jail-free-card.

“If I'm on the road to hell for rejecting it, at least I'm in good company (Justin Martyr, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzen, Augustine, etc.)”

i) I didn’t say anything about your eternal destiny one way or the other.

ii) Mere men are not the rule of faith. Divine revelation is the rule of faith.

You are answerable to God, JD. Not to church fathers or church councils. You need to stop playacting.

iii) I’d add that there’s such a thing as the progress of dogma. We’re in a position to have a better grasp of Biblical theology than the church fathers. And to whom much is given, much is required.

And as for retributive justice:

"He does not deal with us as our sins deserve, he does not repay us as our misdeeds deserve." (Psalm 103:10)

"What has happened to us is a result of our evil deeds and our great guilt, and yet, our God, you have punished us less than our sins have deserved and have given us a remnant like this." (Ezra 9:13)

At the risk of stating the obvious, Israel had a sacrificial system, involving vicarious punishment. The sacrificial animal suffered the penalty due the human sinner. And that, in turn, was a stand-in for Christian redemption.

“And don't give me this 'The Cross is retroactive' stuff.”

You mean like that “retroactive stuff” in Heb 9:15? (“Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.”) Indeed, the whole book of Hebrews enunciates the "retroactive stuff."

“If God was holding back to unload our punishment on Jesus, he would never have punished any sin up until that point, at least not of the elect.”

A fallacious all-or-nothing argument.

“The plain and simple lesson of these passages (others could be cited) is that God does not exact full retributive justice.”

He exacts full retributive justice on the damned, and full retributive justice on the Redeemer instead of the elect.

“He chooses which sins he will fully punish, which sins he will attach a reduced sentence to and which sins he will wink at (Acts 17:30) or blot out altogether.”

You’re confusing historical judgments with eschatological judgment. God doesn’t exact retribution all at once. There are stages to redemption and judgment.

“If you judge people by their works, they would end up somewhere along a continuum, with a garden variety sinner who raised a family in the suburbs and loved them and obeyed the law being closer to happiness than Hitler, for example.”

That’s if JD were to judge people by their works. That happens to reflect JD’s lack of moral perception. But appearances can be deceiving.

“Jesus' warnings about the final judgment and the dichotomy between the two states simply do not allow for gradations of punishment or felicity that a consistent just deserts approach would require.”

i) That’s an illogical assertion. There can be gradations of punishment even though all of the damned are damned.

ii) Christians don’t receive their just desserts. They deserve retribution, but the Redeemer takes their place.

“Um, I beg to differ, and so would the apostle John. Jesus came to the world to save it, and atoned for the sins of the whole world, so now the only condemnation is to reject Jesus and cling to one's sin.”

That’s hardly an accurate summation of Johannine theology. The “world” Jesus came to is a fallen moral order. A “world” characterized by spiritual darkness and blindness, as well as implacable antipathy to God. A world under Satan’s sway.

The Incarnation doesn’t create that situation. Rather, the Incarnation exposes that situation. Only the Holy Spirit can heal the blind (Jn 1:13; 3:3-8).

The only way to escape damnation is to leave the darkness and come into the light. If you stay where you are, where you are lies in darkness, as a child of darkness.

“God would not command all people to repent…”

“All people” don’t even have an opportunity to hear the gospel.

“By the way, Paul is not taking about the final judgment in Romans 6:23, or in Romans 1:18 for that matter.”

Irrelevant. The question at issue was whether there’s an asymmetry between punishment and reward vis-à-vis just desserts. Do Christians get what they deserve? No. Which doesn’t mean the damned won’t be getting what they deserve.

“By my 'made-up standards', my eight year old brother, who is a little hard to deal with sometimes but overall has nothing but love and affection for those he interacts with, works hard at school and is generous with his time to help out around the house, would not deserve to burn in hell forever if he died tomorrow without having heard of Jesus. He does not deserve eternal life with God, I agree, but neither does he deserve punishment in hell forever. I'd like to hear your argument otherwise.”

Steve said: "The “world” Jesus came to is a fallen moral order. A “world” characterized by spiritual darkness and blindness, as well as implacable antipathy to God. A world under Satan’s sway.

But "implacable antipathy to God" does not necessarily mean without worth altogether. Creation still reflects its creator [Rom 1:20], albeit imperfectly, or sin would be more powerful than God's creative act.

[Rom 1:20] suggests that interpretively it is more a case where the scope of sin touches all of creation, rather than sin so permeates creation that nothing of the creator is evident at all.

Why distinguish?

Because only one of those two positions has Biblical fidelity; one explains what it is God is trying to salvage and why God chose a redemptive act, rather than a recreation.

Although the world is now fallen away from it's originally created righteous state, and man does not display his original righteousness, it was God's eternal purpose that this was how creation should be.

This spiritual darkness, blindness, and any sway Satan has is not God's default state, but temporary until Christ's final return at which point creation will be restored to its proper default state.

The antipathy God has here, is not to creation itself (wholly and completely), but rather to the state creation is apart from His eternal purpose as He intended it.

"But 'implacable antipathy to God' does not necessarily mean without worth altogether."

A red herring.

"Creation still reflects its creator [Rom 1:20], albeit imperfectly, or sin would be more powerful than God's creative act."

Another red herring.

"Although the world is now fallen away from it's originally created righteous state, and man does not display his original righteousness, it was God's eternal purpose that this was how creation should be."

Every phase represents God's eternal purpose.

"This spiritual darkness, blindness, and any sway Satan has is not God's default state."

God doesn't have a default state.

"The antipathy God has here, is not to creation itself (wholly and completely)..."

Somehow you manage to invert a statement about the world's antipathy to God into a statement about God's antipathy to the world. You have a peculiar mind.

Rhology wrote: "I'd always thought that site was a good solid place, w/o reading it much. This dialogue has disabused me of that notion. In what way shall Walters be considered a proclaimer of Christianity?"

I am not associated with either site, but somehow managed to get snagged in the end of it.

I wasn't aware of CADRE until it was mentioned here. There was acrimony (and very little charity) on all parts including that of this site.

Any un-Christ-like behavior on the part of professing Christian's is regrettable and should be avoided, especially when engaged in inter-theological dialogue.

Steve said: At the risk of stating the obvious, Israel had a sacrificial system, involving vicarious punishment. The sacrificial animal suffered the penalty due the human sinner. And that, in turn, was a stand-in for Christian redemption.

By all means, feel free to "expose" my errors in the same fashion you do so with folks like JD Walters. I often feel disappointed that you go after easy targets for your main blog articles while not taking on the more meaty and solid work out there.

I don't have to prove penal substitution. There are excellent articles and monographs which do that already.

"By all means, feel free to 'expose' my errors in the same fashion you do so with folks like JD Walters. I often feel disappointed that you go after easy targets for your main blog articles while not taking on the more meaty and solid work out there."

I understand why you might have a high opinion of your own work. Don't assume that the rest of us share your glowing self-assessment.

The CADRE, like Triablogue, has a group blog devoted to defending the Faith and advancing the Gospel. Unlike Triablogue, the CADRE is a very broad coalition, theologically and politically speaking, that includes Catholic and Protestant members. The baseline is the Nicene Creed:

http://www.christiancadre.org/statement.html

I am probably one of its most conservative members, theologically speaking, and joined the group long ago because there were few organized apologists online who actually engaged the skeptics. The group at first focused on discussion boards (such as CARM and Infidels.org), then developed its own blog and enhanced the website as the nature of the internet and the discussions changed.

If my primary goal were to advocate a particular theological viewpoint online -- which I consider a worthy goal -- I would not have joined the CADRE. Nor would I likely have joined Triablogue, for that matter.

In any event, I am glad that JD has decided to focus on apologetics while posting a the CADRE. He is, as are all CADRE members, free to pursue his other interests on his own blog or other outlet.

Maybe time to open up or reopen a larger discussion on penal substitution?

The Catholic position of inherent righteousness and the Protestant position of imputed righteousness (which I adhere to) are where the road divides and there is no Mister in between that can be messed with here.

I read plenty of (very conservative) Reformed articles on Penal Substitution - but they're all based on the same presumptions (e.g. the Levitical Sacrifices modeled PSub) without any actual exegesis above that of a gloss.

I only have a high opinion of my work because it is *my* own work, personally researched and thus which I stand behind - which is not what most people can say about their own (e.g. dogmatically parroting the idea that the Levitical Sacrifices were Psub in nature).

To say I'm not worth reading comes off as a cop out since you're willing to read (and comment heavily) on folks who don't produce arguments half as good as mine. Seriously, if I'm just as bad as those folks, you should be jumping at the chance to "expose" me...but you dont. Instead you hide behind all these excuses.

I know full well many Protestants believe in PSub, and I've said that throughout my work, but the fact is only the Reformed have the classical Protestant view in mind (as well as the most systematic approach to it).

Yes, a large percentage of Protestants accept Penal Substitution - but that's simply because they don't know any better.

The more 'intellectual' branches like Lutheranism and (especially) Calvinism know that it's a key pillar holding up Sola Fide (as classically understood).

Protestants of all varieties generally claim Christ took on more than one 'role' during the atonement such that various aspects of the atonement can be true without denying PSub. For example, Christus Victor is often seen as another aspect along with PSub.

As you can see, it's more than suspicious that folks like Steve will spend lots of time on less relevant subjects and even easy targets, but they go silent to seek to change the subject when I called him out for something as basic as claiming the Levitical Sacrifices operated in a Psub framework.

Nick wrote: "As you can see, it's more than suspicious that folks like Steve will spend lots of time on less relevant subjects and even easy targets, but they go silent to seek to change the subject when I called him out for something as basic as claiming the Levitical Sacrifices operated in a Psub framework."

But you were selective in which Levitical framework you chose for PSub (perhaps you believe protestants also do, I don't know).

There is actually more than one framework for PSub, which is why I asked about you're views of Jesus as kinsman-redeemer [Leviticus 25:47-49]

Theologically, even if if you don't accept that Christ's role was as a sacrificial lamb, you haven't weakened Sola Fide because Christ's role as kinsman-redeemer results in the same end effect.

Even if Sola Fide doesn't couch in in those terms the end result is the same.

In one framework an innocent animal receives the punishment due to the sinner (and thus pays the debt the sinner owes). You reject this.

In the other framework the sinner incurs debt because of sin that cannot be paid (the consequence of sin is death), and the kinsman redeemer pays the debt.

I'm not sure you've addressed all of the ways Christ's sacrifice can be seen to support Sola Fide.

"Yes, a large percentage of Protestants accept Penal Substitution - but that's simply because they don't know any better."

Yes and No. Many might be unaware of the fine points of the discussion but utilizing a common sense reading of Scripture and the plain fact of how the Levitical sacrificial structure points us to the Substitutionary motif.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying I was "selective" in which Levitical framework I chose. Of the various types of sacrifices, I was focused on the ones specifically dealing with sin.

The kinsman-redeemer I don't think fits Penal Substitution since nobody is getting punished, especially with death.

You said: "Theologically, even if if you don't accept that Christ's role was as a sacrificial lamb, you haven't weakened Sola Fide because Christ's role as kinsman-redeemer results in the same end effect."

I *DO* accept Chrst was a sacrificial lamb - I just deny it was in the form of PSub. The kinsman-redeemer doesn't work since no punishment is involved, it is not dealing with *sin* per se, which is what Passive Obedience requires. The K-R is not a sacrifice. The Kinsman-Redeemer fits a lot more closely with the Catholic view of Satisfaction.

The kinsman-redeemer provision doesn't place a restriction on what debts can be repaid by that redeemer.

If the punishment for sin is death, the debt that needs to be paid by the kinsman redeemer IS death.

Also, the sacrificial atonement was an ongoing process as the book of Hebrews points, whereas the debt repayment done by a kinsman-redeemer was a completely self-sufficient and final transaction.

If you further consider the argument in Hebrews about the priest having to sacrifice for his own sins before sacrificing for the sins of the people, this observation still stands true for a kinsman redeemer.

Everyone other than Christ had this debt over them, so no one but Christ could stand in as kinsman redeemer and repay the debt. The forgiveness of the debt (of sin) under kinsman-redeemer is no different than the mercy seat in the atonement sacrifice.

And the Biblical arguments that support Sole Fide under levitical sacrificial atonement stand up equally well under kinsman redeemer.

(It should also be noted that in old-covenant scripture redemption was always by way of kins-man redeemer, so the theology was already well understood)

I said you were selective simply because Sola Fide stands on its own under a number of Levitical schemes. Although your case is not convincing, for the sake of argument if it is granted to you, there are still other equally strong pillars holding Sole Fide up.

You said: "The kinsman-redeemer provision doesn't place a restriction on what debts can be repaid by that redeemer."

The text is clearly about financial debts, or maybe anything else of value - but to include shedding of blood, especially the death penalty is injecting your own meaning into the text. Further, no scenario would fit in which the death penalty was involved in the first place. Someone who is guilty of the death penalty cannot be ransomed, as the Law explicitly says. Further, the text says if the original person becomes wealthy enough, they can ransom themself out - again, which only fits a monetary ransom motif.

You're injecting sin, sacrifice, death, etc, in a context and lesson that's not dealing with that.

Nick said: "The text is clearly about financial debts, or maybe anything else of value - but to include shedding of blood, especially the death penalty is injecting your own meaning into the text."

I'm flattered you've crediting me with ideas not my own, pun intended (sorry couldn't resist), but do you agree that the kinsman redeemer provision outlined in [Lev 25:47-49] is embedded in the heart of the Jubilee cycle [Lev 25]?

If so, you can't possibly be arguing that Jesus did not come to declare the day of the Lord which is to say, to declare the Jubilee?! That's just silly.

Remembering that the Jubilee represented a type of generational sabbath, look at [Luke 4:16-21] which shows Jesus claiming fulfillment of the Jubilee requirement prophesied in [Isa 61:1-2][Isa 58:6] as kinsman-redeemer. "The year of the Lord's favour" mentioned specifically in [Isa 61:2] IS NOTHING LESS than the Jubilee year. There are other verses besides.

You're argument makes the Jubilee year merely financial and goes down an exegetical rabbit hole I suspect you won't want to enter.

Breaking yokes, setting those in bondage free, and proclaiming liberty to captives was absolutely THE hallmark of Jubilee, and it was not merely financial. It was both actual and spiritual.

The only question is does sin count as bondage? Jesus' words in [John 8:34] address that question pretty decisively.

Nick said "What you seem to be doing is trying to salvage Psub, but the facts are plain that so far I'm the only one actually looking to the actual texts regarding Levitical Sacrifices."

But you're only looking at the Levitical sacrifices believing that if you can disassociate it with Christ, Psub falls. To say K-R is "..distinct from animal sacrifices and sin." misses the whole point.

In the Christ as animal sacrifice metaphor (which you reject), which is the signifier and which is the signified?*The animal is the signifier and Christ is the signified.

In the Christ as kinsman-redeemer metaphor (which you ignore), which is the signifier and which is the signified?*The kinsman-redeemer is the signifier and Christ is the signified.

The issue isn't to compare one model of substitutionary atonement to another, but to recognize both exist as metaphors for Christ.

If guilt is analogous to debt is analogous to sin;and condemnation is analogous to bondage is analogous to death;than sacrifice is analogous to kinsman-redeemer is analogous to Christ in a substitutionary way and Psub still stands!

For me to have to salvage Psub, it would first have to be in jeopardy.

However, I can see why you want to avoid the whole kinsman-redeemer/debt analogy as it weakens your case too much.